>professor explains a long proof >ask him why we couldn't

Math is just applied philosophy, if you think about.

>>7813774
Just start your undergrad? What objects are you assuming you can subtract?

kek OP, I remember that with division. You get used to it. The way math is done, with definitions, theorems and proof, is hard to get your head around at first. Once you get it you, you get it, and becomes awesome and you start wishing everyone else had that kind of rigor.

File: tired pepe.jpg (6KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x241px

>>7813774
>But that doesn't make any sense, professor. How come the result isn't intuitive at all?
>Well, actually, if you use the axiom of choice...

>>7813774
>we haven't defined subtraction yet
enjoying your intro to proofs class OP?

nobody is that autistic in math courses unless you're doing that stupid "hurr we must prove EVERYTHANG because muh RIGOUR" course they make everybody take

>>7813799

AC is for proofs about uncountably infinite sets, what the hell are you talking about

>>7813785
>>7813798
>>7813802

Lel I was just meming I understand the importance of being rigorous but it was funny nonetheless.

It was in my linear algebra class. We were proving certain lemma about vector space using only the axioms we had.

>>7813821

oh nice! you need AC to prove results about uncountably infinite dimensional vector spaces